Schriften deS ZentrumS für Archäologie und KulturgeSchichte deS SchwArZmeerrAumeS 22

AUSTAUSCH UND KULTURKONTAKT

IM SÜDKAUKASUS

UND SEINEN ANGRENZENDEN REGIONEN

IN DER SPÄTBRONZE-/FRÜHEISENZEIT

Schriften deS ZentrumS für Archäologie und KulturgeSchichte deS SchwArZmeerrAumeS

Herausgegeben von

frAnçoiS BertemeS und AndreAS furtwängler

AUSTAUSCH UND KULTURKONTAKT IM

SÜDKAUKASUS UND SEINEN ANGRENZENDEN

REGIONEN IN DER SPÄTBRONZE-/FRÜHEISENZEIT

HERAUSGEGEBEN

VON

ANDREAS MEHNERT

GUNDULA MEHNERT

SABINE REINHOLD

Separatum

Bibliographische Information der Deutschen NationalbibliothekDie Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation

in der Deutschen Nationalbibliographie; detaillierte bibliographischeDaten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.ddb.de> abrufbar.

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg und des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeeraumes e. V.

Verlag: Beier & Beran – Archäologische Fachliteratur Thomas-Müntzer-Str. 103, D 08134 Langenweißbach Tel. 037603/3688, Fax 037603/3690 www.beier-beran.de, E-Mail: verlag@beier-beran.deSatz/Layout: Andreas Mehnert

C: Copyright und V. i. S. d. P. für den Inhalt liegen bei den Autoren.

ISBN 978-3-941171-81-7

Titelbild: Blick zum Kasbek (Foto: G. Mehnert, 2002)

Vorwort ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Sergej L. Dudarev – Vladimir A. FomenkoA new transcaucasian bronze belt in the Northern Caucasus .................................................................. 3

Sabine Reinhold – Dmitri S. Korobov – Andrej B. BelinskijFormation und Transformation einer bronzezeitlichen Gebirgslandschaft im Nordkaukasus .......... 9

Vladimir ErlikhThe transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age in the North-West-Caucasus in light ofcommunication with Transcaucasia ........................................................................................................... 27

Alexander SkakovÜber die Formierung der Bzyb’-Kolchis-Kultur ....................................................................................... 47

Revaz PapuashviliThe Late Bronze/Early Iron Age burial grounds from Tsaishi .............................................................. 65

Nino KobaliaDagger-shaped pendants with dog-like heads – A defining element of Colchian bronze objects ...... 79

Gülçin İlgezdi Bertram – Jan-Krzysztof BertramUdabno – Eine erste Zusammenfassung der Ausgrabungs- und Prospektionsergebnisse nach Abschluss der Feldarbeiten ................................................................................................................ 87

Sabina Brodbeck-JuckerDie Keramik von Udabno in Ostgeorgien ............................................................................................... 123

René KunzeStudien zu den Kleinfunden von Udabno I–III (Ostgeorgien) – Zum Stand der Untersuchungen .......................................................................................................................................... 139

Gabriele KastlDer Didi Gora nahe Cnori im Alazani-Tal in der Spätbronze-/Früheisenzeit ................................... 149

Nadine Ludwig-EgermannKeramik ostgeorgischer Fundplätze am Übergang von der Spätbronze- zur Früheisenzeit ........... 159

Nino Shanshashvili – Goderdzi NarimanishviliLate Bronze/Early Iron Age sites in Trialeti – External relations and cultural contacts .................. 175

Arzen Bobokhyan – Ruben BadalyanLate Bronze Age balance weights from Gegharot (Armenia) ............................................................... 195

Inhalt

Mehmet IşıklıSome comments on the Late Bronze Age process in Erzurum and the adjacent region ................... 223

Aynur ÖzfıratSurvey on the settlements of Late Bronze/Early Iron Age in the northern shore of Lake Van Basin ............................................................................................................................................. 237

Madrid SurkhayevMonuments of the the early stage of Late Bronze Age in Northwestern Azerbaijan (15th–8th centuries BC) .................................................................................................................................. 251

Сафар Г. АшуровПамятники Шарурской равнины эпохи поздней бронзы – раннего железа ............................. 261

Lauren Ristvet – Veli Bakhshaliyev – Hilary Gopnik – Safar G. AshurovThe origins of political complexity in Naxçıvan – Excavations and survey at Oğlanqala2008–2010 ...................................................................................................................................................... 281

Bahlul IbragimliAbout Late Bronze/Early Iron Age sepulchral monuments of Naxçıvan .......................................... 291

Christian Konrad PillerThe Caucasian connection – Reflections on the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age in Northern Iran and its connections to the Southern Caucasus ............................... 305

Stephan KrollThe Iron Age II to III transition (Urartian Period) in Northwestern Iran as seen from Hasanlu ..... 319

Südkaukasus – Spätbronze-/Früheisenzeit 319–326

Between 1956 and 1977, the University of Pennsyl-vania Museum carried out excavations at Hasan-lu Tepe/Iran (fig. 1). Results and finds at Hasanlu were overwhelming from the first campaign on-wards. In conducting this large scale project the director of excavations, R. H. Dyson, experienced many pressures: field director abroad in Iran, Cu-rator at the Museum in Philadelphia and Profes-sor at the University of Pennsylvania. So it is not surprising that often there was only little time left, to examine the results, the notes, the photo-graphs carefully. Only preliminary reports of a few pages were published after each campaign. Comprehensive reports were published rarely. Final reports were planned already after the first campaigns, but never achieved.

So the major reports on stratigraphy and the different Iron Age periods are by now almost 50 years old. Dyson published his comprehensive study on Hasanlu architecture, stratigraphy and pottery in 19651. T. C. Young published excerpts of his 1963 dissertation on the Iron Age pottery in 1965 too2. Since then the basic outline of stra-tigraphy, architecture and pottery development for Hasanlu has been reiterated for decades. Only recently M. Danti started to rework the early pe-riods from Hasanlu VI to IV3. Nevertheless, from the very beginning of excavations Hasanlu be-came the key site for prehistoric archaeology in north-western Iran.

1 Dyson 1965.

2 Young 1965.

3 Danti 2011 is the first publication in a series of articles and monographs to be published the next years.

Dyson and Young had outlined a slow perma-nent development at Hasanlu from Iron Age I on to the end of Iron Age II (Hasanlu periods V–IV B) covering some 700 years between around 1500 to 800 BCE. After the destruction of the Iron Age II citadel of Hasanlu IV B a sharp break fol-lowed: »Following the sacking of Hasanlu IV and the murder or enslavement of much of its popu-lation, there is some evidence of a squatters’ oc-cupation within the fortification walls among the collapsed ruins. A few older walls were reused with poorly built new ones. An attempt was even made to close the demolished gate section of the main wall. This period, of unknown length, may be referred to as period IV A for convenience. Few artifacts are known from it. For purposes of dis-cussion a period of fifty years may be arbitrarily allowed for it with the possibility that it might be shorter or much longer. This fifty years would en-compass the remaining years of Urartian control of the general area following its conquest. The squatters’ occupation is then followed by a period of abandonment as indicated by almost a meter of erosion deposits produced by the filling in of the standing ruins«4.

T. C. Young described the transition between Hasanlu period IV to III this way: »The stratigraph-ic evidence for discontinuity between periods IV and III, despite the facts that the main citadel fortification wall foundation from period IV was re-used in period III and that some of the period III house walls were founded on stumps of period IV walls, is impressive. The complete destruction of the period IV citadel is itself the type of calam-

4 Dyson 1965, 203.

The Iron Age II to III transition (Urartian Period) in Northwestern Iran as seen from Hasanlu

Stephan Kroll

320 Stephan Kroll

produced by the filling in of the standing ruins«6. The opposite is true. The walls of period III b rest directly on the burnt level of period IV b. This is documented in the squares in the north-western part of the high mound (P-S 20-23), but also in the south-west.

For period III the first (preliminary) plan was published in 19897. This plan gives the impression the fortification wall was excavated completely: a solid drawn wall all around the mound. The documentation in the UPM shows not even half of the fortification wall was excavated: only the western part (fig. 2). Allegedly the eastern part was traced, but only scant evidence from field notes is available for this part of the wall. The for-tification wall itself looks, as if it was never fin-ished. In operation T 19-U 19 there is a weird cor-ner, where the wall is missing (fig. 2). It looks as if here two diverging building plans clashed and then construction was terminated. The fortifica-tion wall itself cuts deeply into the period IV b de-struction level as was documented well in DD 30-31 in 19728.

In publications up to 1972 the fortification wall was viewed as belonging to period IV, reused in period III. Only during the 1974 campaign it was found out that the fortification wall in fact be-longed to period III on grounds of building tech-nique and stratigraphy. The architectural details of the fortification wall clearly showed that it was built within the Urartian period in the 8th or 7th cen-tury when most of the lake Urmia region was part of the kingdom of Urartu9. Period III had always been separated into 2 phases: III b and III a10. The fortification wall clearly precedes these two phas-es. So the (Urartian) fortification wall, attributed since 1972 to period III b, should better be called period III c, as it was built before the period III b structures (s. fig. 4, 2). All these structures were set against the fortification wall, after it had been constructed. In a finished Urartian citadel, one would expect quite a few massive public build-ings like garrison quarters, storehouses etc. noth-ing was found at Hasanlu. The small rectangular buildings found inside the fortification wall look

6 Dyson 1965, 203; Young 1965, 57.

7 Dyson 1989, fig. 6.

8 s. Dyson 1989, fig. 7; for more information s. Muscarella 2006, 82–85.

9 Kroll 2011.

10 Dyson 1965, 204–213; Muscarella 2006, 82 f.

ity that often leads to discontinuity in the occu-pation of a site, although there is some evidence for a short period of« squatter »occupation in the period IV ruins. There is no relationship either in building plans or in quality of construction be-tween the architecture of period III and period IV. Finally, the stratification, when viewed in sec-tion, reveals a considerable erosion surface over the top of the initial period IV collapse, followed by a fairly deep level of secondary collapse mixed with fine silt which underlies the structures and occupation debris of period III. The stratigraph-ic evidence, therefore, suggests a considerable chronological gap between these two periods.

The ceramic evidence supports the stratigraphic data, but leaves a thread of doubt as to just how complete the cultural discontinuity between peri-ods IV and III may be. In many rather crucial re-spects period III is not at all like period IV. For example: (I) the grey ware firing technique, intro-duced at the beginning of period V and so charac-teristic of period IV, is missing in period III; (2) in period III a distinctive painted ware appears for the first time; (3) a wide range of shapes and fea-tures such as tubular and trefoil spouts or canteen jars appears for the first time in period III; and (4) most of the distinctive shapes and features of pe-riod IV do not carry over into period III. On the other hand: (I) the red-slipped variety of Com-mon Ware carries over from period IV to period III; (2) a few of the less distinctive shapes of IV linger in III; and (3) the thin fine variety of Fine Ware in period IV could be considered the proto-type of the fine-walled Fine Ware so characteristic of period III. The general impression is of a rather marked cultural shift, but not of a total cultural discontinuity between the two periods«5.

Today, from the point of documentation of the excavation, it is not easy to say what happened after the destruction of period IV b, as the docu-mented stratigraphy is often difficult to interpret. Above ruins of period IV b no clear floor levels or building periods could be observed. The period IV b burnt level is a solid level of reddish burnt brick, which can be recognized easily. In any case the view published first in 1965 is not correct, that a »squatters’ occupation (called Hasanlu IV a) is then followed by a period of abandonment as indicated by almost a meter of erosion deposits

5 Young 1965, 57–59.

321The Iron Age II to III transition (Urartian Period) in Northwestern Iran as seen from Hasanlu

more like a squatter occupation, just after the con-struction of the fortification wall was abandoned. Some flimsy structures with long pavements and troughs could have been houses with adjunct stables for keeping animals. They are certainly not »paved alleyways« as Dyson suggested11. The Urartian character of period III c and III b is en-hanced by typical red slipped pottery as it was in use in Urartu. Already in 1958 in area Z 26 a red slipped pouring jar with a trefoil spout has been found on a small pavement (fig. 3, 1: Has 58-390; for the findspot s. fig. 4, 2: right); Charles Burney who was present in Hasanlu at this time identi-fied it as Toprakkale Ware and Urartian. Unfor-tunately it was forgotten and never published. The same trefoil jars are abundant all over Urartu. They were found in great quantities at Ayanis, Karmir Blur and Bastam.

All these data indeed give the impression there was a sharp break in continuity after the destruc-tion of Hasanlu IV b citadel. I have argued else-where that other data in NW Iran suggest there was change but also continuity between Iron Age II and III12. Recently C. Piller expressed a similar view by rechecking Assyrian and Urartian sourc-es. He summarized for the 9th century: »Clothing and armour of the Urartians are quite different from later representations, but seem to be virtual-ly identical with the appearance of warriors from north-western Iran, especially from Hasanlu«13. But even in Hasanlu itself several common fea-tures for period IV b and period III can be found. At the time when Young and Dyson published their first comprehensive reports these features were not so obvious.

Already in Period IV b pottery has been found that can be linked to Urartu only. In operation Y 33 a red polished pitcher with trefoil spout and a twisted strap handle was found (fig. 3, 2). Jars like this are generally considered the hallmark of Urartian pottery. To my knowledge they are not found in so-called Mannean territory: not in Qala-ichi, not in Ziwiyeh, not at the Zendan. This ves-sel resembles the standard red polished pitcher we find all over Urartu in the 9th, 8th and 7th centu-

11 Dyson 1977, 549.

12 Kroll 2004, 46. Already in 1972 Muscarella referred to simi-larities between the later Urartian Art and certain finds in Hasanlu IV b (Muscarella 1972, 265).

13 Piller 2012.

ry BCE. It is significant that in Haftavan IV14 and in Kordlar I15 beside the normal Grey Ware forms similar pitchers were found. This pitcher is not a single find. More vessels like this were found in other Hasanlu operations (fig. 3, 3. 4). The left pitcher below was found in operation X 31 in 1972. The right one was found in operation X 20 in 1974. Both of them belong to period IV b.

More features link Hasanlu IV B and Urartu. In Hasanlu IV B and to a lesser degree in period III B, long rectangular buildings were excavated, which show narrow stone pavings, sometimes with ad-jacent small stone lined channels or troughs (?). Two examples of these long paved structures were found below Burned Building VII (fig. 4, 1). Typical for all pavings in period IV is the use of large flagstones.

In period III B the paving is less elaborate and the flagstones used are much smaller. They are located in operation Y 24-25, Z 25, BB 26-27 and CC 28 (fig. 4, 2). In fig. 4, 2 the Urartian fortifica-tion wall is seen on the left, fragmentary stone buildings with adjacent stone pavings abut on the fortification wall. It is clear from the plan the fortification wall is earlier than the abutting struc-tures.

This short overview can only shed a glimpse on a rather complicated excavation history in Hasan-lu and the transition from Iron Age II to Iron Age III. But I think a scenario of continuity and change is evolving: more continuity than prior anticipat-ed. The most important feature is the situation in Hasanlu IV b (Iron Age II). Connections with As-syria, Syria, Iran were discussed in many publica-tions. Until now hardly any connections with ear-ly Urartu were considered. In examining period IV b carefully, as C. Piller did, we may find more evidence in the future.

BibliographyDanti 2011

M. Danti, The Artisan’s house at Hasanlu Tepe, Iran, Iran 49, 2011, 11–54

Dyson 1965R. H. Dyson Jr., Problems of Protohistoric Iran as Seen from Hasanlu, JNES 24, 3, 1965, 193–217

14 Tala’i 2007, pl. 2.

15 Lippert 1979, Abb. 14.

322 Stephan Kroll

Dyson 1977R. H. Dyson Jr., The architecture of Hasanlu. Periods I to IV, AJA 81, 1977, 548–552

Dyson 1989R. H. Dyson Jr., Rediscovering Hasanlu, in: R. H.Dyson Jr. – M. M. Voigt (eds.), East of Assyria. The Highland Settlement of Hasanlu, Expedition 31, 2. 3 (Philadelphia 1989) 3–11

Kroll 2004 S. Kroll, Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Maku and Khoy Regions of Iranian Western Azerbaijan, in: M. Azarnoush (ed.), Proceedings of the Interna-tional Symposium on Iranian Archaeology: North-western Region (Tehran 2004) 45–53

Kroll 2011S. Kroll,  İran’daki Urartu Şehirleri  - Urartian Cities in  Iran,  in:  K. Köroğlu  –  E. Konyar  (eds.),  Urartu: Doğu’da  Değişim  –  Urartu:  Transformation  in  the East, Yapı Kredi Yayınları (Istanbul 2011) 150–169

Lippert 1979A. Lippert, Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen am Kordlar Tepe in Persisch-West Aserbaidschan (1971-1978), AMI 12, 1979, 103–154

Muscarella 1972O. W. Muscarella, Hasanlu in the Ninth Century b.c. and Its Relations with Other Cultural Centers of the Near East, AJA 75, 1972, 263–66

Muscarella 2006O. W. Muscarella, The excavation of Hasanlu: An Archaeological evaluation, BASOR 342, 2006, 69–94

Piller 2012C. Piller, Bewaffnung und Tracht urartäischer und nordwestiranischer Krieger des 9. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Geographie des frühen Urartu, in: S. Kroll – C. Gruber – U. Hell-wag – M. Roaf – P. Zimansky (eds.), Biainili-Urartu. The Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Munich 12–14 October 2007, Tagungsbericht des Münchner Symposiums 12.–14. Oktober 2007, Acta Iranica 51 (Leuven 2012) 441–455

Tala’i 2007H. Tala’i, The Iron II (ca. 1200–800 B.C.) pottery as-semblage at Haftavan IV – NW-Iran, Iranica Anti-qua 42, 2007, 105–123

Young 1965T. C. Young jr., A Comparative Ceramic Chronol-ogy for Western Iran, 1500–500 B.C., Iran 3, 1965, 53–85

Prof. Dr. Stephan Kroll Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München München University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology & Anthropology Consulting Scholar The Hasanlu Project Philadelphia/United States

323The Iron Age II to III transition (Urartian Period) in Northwestern Iran as seen from Hasanlu

Fig. 1 Major Iron II–III sites in Northwestern Iran (Urartian – Neo Assyrian period).

324 Stephan Kroll

Fig. 2 Hasanlu, Urartian period III working plan 2012 (plan courtesy of the Hasanlu project compiled by K. Leaman-Insua).

325The Iron Age II to III transition (Urartian Period) in Northwestern Iran as seen from Hasanlu

Fig. 3 1 Urartian Red slipped jar from operation Z 26 (HAS 58-390) (courtesy of the Hasanlu project, drawn by K. Leaman-Insua); 2 Red slipped polished pitcher with twisted strap handle, Hasanlu period IV B, operation Y 33 (courtesy of the Hasanlu project); 3 Grey Ware pitcher with strap handle, Hasanlu period IV B (courtesy of the Hasanlu project); 4 Red-Brown Ware pitcher with twisted strap handle, Hasanlu period IV B (courtesy of the Hasanlu project).

1

2

43

326 Stephan Kroll

Fig. 4 1 Hasanlu period IV, T 22–23, U 22–23, fragmentary stone buildings with stone pavings below BB VII (plan courtesy of the Hasanlu project compiled by K. Leaman-Insua); 2 Hasanlu period III b, Y 23-AA 26, left the Urartian fortification wall, fragmentary stone buildings with adjacent stone pavings are abutting the fortification wall (plan courtesy of the Hasanlu project compiled by K. Leaman-Insua).

1

2